The Swanston St. Wall Collapse

The Swanston St. Wall Collapse that happened on March 28 2013 thereby killing three people may have been occasioned by freak winds. The collapse resulted in deaths of Marie Faiwoo, Alexander, and Bridget Jones. On the day that the brick wall collapsed, there were gusts of wind that were witnessed during the afternoon. The wind was moving at 102 km/h.Advertising We will write a custom report sample on The Swanston St. Wall Collapse specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More The Fairfax Media indicated that the wind was travelling at 83km/hr some minutes to 3pm. Authorities also reported that such wind was capable of breaking tree branches and/or dislodging roofs from houses. It is also speculated that the wall would have collapsed due to negligence by the necessary authorities. The Swanston Square has been neglected for the last 30years. This negligence could have resulted in its weakening and precariousness. The hoarding is highly attribute d to the parachuting effect of the wind and hence the collapse of the wall and fatalities. The advertisement board was almost one metre taller. The brick wall was approximately 2.5 metres. The board was therefore a huge protrusion on its face. When hoarding is done in a way that it becomes higher than the wall of attachment, it becomes hazardous, hence interfering with the safety of the wall. This claim is likely to be the reason behind the collapse of the Swanston St. Wall. The board could have played the role of a sail, hence making the strong wind collapse the wall. The Swanston wall was made of bricks. It was located at Swanston Street in Melbourne, which was a site on which the building development was to happen. This wall was erected in the early 60s and that it was almost the only remaining wall of the time. The wall was also among the structures that had not been demolished to pave a way for new constructions on the site. The site is owned by Grocon Pty Ltd. The Swanston wal l was adjacent to a footpath along the Swanston Street. When the wall collapsed, it did so in a linear way. The wall was about ten linear metres. The collapse went across the path where pedestrians passed, hence causing fatal injuries. Three pedestrians died from debris injuries. Two casualties died at the scene. Various bodies of investigation have since been involved in searching the truth on the Swanston St. Wall. Such bodies include the Coroner, WorkSafe, Victoria Police, and the Melbourne City council. The bodies are looking for facts about the collapse of the wall. Various sides of the story and speculations are being evaluated for facts.Advertising Looking for report on social sciences? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More The police officers had also requested that any individual that could have been present or near the scene during the collapse to come forward to assist them in the ongoing investigations. The investigation s have also found that there were other casualties that could have been injured by the collapsing brick wall although they were immediately rushed for treatment before the police and other security officers arrived on the scene. Such casualties may have the necessary information that the police and other investigative bodies have been looking for since the incidence happened. Any individual with footage or live recording of how the wall collapsed and/or how the initial response activities were carried out has also been requested to assist the investigation bodies. The bodies that could have authorised the hoarding of the advertisement have also been questioned. Investigative bodies are looking for any leads on whether there was negligence on the side of the owner company or any other authorising body. The hoarding of the advertisement board that went almost a metre above the wall must have been authorised by a particular body. Such information will lead to unearthing of the facts ab out the cause of any death. Speculations on the gust that was blowing across the town are also being investigated. Examinations have so far established that it was not very clear how the wind speed of 82 Km/h and 100Km/hr were related to the collapse of the wall since the tall buildings in the town affect the velocity of wind and eventually its measurement. Investigators are also looking for information on whether the advertisement board acted as a sail leading to the collapse of the wall. In addition, investigators are also looking for information concerning the bodies that should take responsibility of the fatalities and injuries. Investigations on the relatives to the three people that died from injuries have been successful. All the three bodies were handed over to the families for burial. Investigative bodies have also announced that people should report on any other structure that may be dangerous to human, animal, and property in their areas of operations. Authorities are the refore looking for other structures across the town that may pose a threat to human life. Deeper analysis of this accident proves that the accident was foreseeable. It is also clear that someone ought to have taken a step to prevent the fatalities that were not called for. In terms of ethical and legal matters, there were some authorities or persons that ought to have taken charge before the collapse of the wall. To begin with, the Swanston St. Wall was located next to a path that many pedestrians used.Advertising We will write a custom report sample on The Swanston St. Wall Collapse specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More The street was also next to an international school. It was therefore clear that there were bound to be fatalities if any accident happened along the street. A response mechanism ought to have been easy to access from this street. However, the security and rescue team arrived at the scene late. In fact, it did not eve n witness the initial stages of the collapse. It is for this reason that the security and investigation bodies still call upon those who were injured and rushed to hospitals on their own to come forward and assist in investigations. The government ought to provide a rescue mechanism for citizens across the city. A quick response to the tragedy could have saved the life of any victim who died in the hospital later. It is also the responsibility of the building and construction authorities to investigate and/or approve the building and erecting of various structures in the country. A wall such as this one that collapsed in a broad day light would have been averted. The authorities should have noted that the hoarding of the advertisement board was done wrongly and dangerously. An advertisement board that was erected on the wall in 2011 is highly attributed to the collapse of the wall and death of the three innocent people. If the authorities in charge of construction in Melbourne were hawk eyed and played a close investigative role, they would have noted that the advertisement board was wrongly done. The authorising body would have stopped the erection of the board on an already weak wall hence avert the fatalities. The building and construction authority in Australian should therefore take the legal and ethical responsibility. The body is mandated by law to protect the lives of its citizens and such negligence should be consequential. According to ‘The Sydney Morning Herald’ (April 12, 2013, p.11), some of the officers in the building and construction authority may have been consulted by the advertisers before they erected their advert. The regulating officers who gave a green light to the advertisers should also take the legal responsibility. In such a case, due diligence should have demanded the officers to visit the site of the construction to evaluate and/or assess the wall for its ability to withstand the advert board. In the same way, the auth orising officers would have visited the site of construction after the hoarding of the advert to assess its safety.Advertising Looking for report on social sciences? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More It is at this point that they would have noted that the advertisement board had protruded by one metre above the height of the wall, hence posing a threat. However, ‘The Age’ (March 29, 2013, p.1) observes that someone must have neglected his or her duties and assumed that all would be well through assumption. The consequences of the assumption and negligence were death of three innocent pedestrians and injuries of many others. The municipal council of Melbourne should also take responsibility for the deaths. It is among the mandate of the municipal authorities to ensure safety of the people. The collapsed wall has been standing within their mandated areas for over 50 years. This wall was also among the oldest constructions in the area. The authorities should have secured the wall, reinforced it, or even elected warning signs on it. However, there were no warnings or instructions. Therefore, people just walked alongside the 10-metre wall that later collapsed. ‘The Age’ (March 29, 2013, p.1) associates this event with the death of three people who were trapped in the debris without a warning. The municipal authorities should also take moral and legal responsibilities. ‘The Age’ (March 30, 2013, p.5) asserts that Grocon Pty Ltd should also take responsibility for the three deaths together with the unknown number of injuries. The owner company must have had the necessary information about the wall. It is the company that holds the documents on how the wall was constructed, its durability, and lifespan. Furthermore, the company knew about the strength of the structure even before allowing for the erection of the advertisement board on it. In fact, the Grocon Pty Ltd Company administrators ought to be arrested and prosecuted for murder through negligence and carelessness. Officers of the company would have advised that the wall be demolished if it did not have enough stability to withstand its weight. In a similar way, officer s and company construction engineers would have advised against the erection of the advertisement board on the already weak wall. This could have saved the innocent lives. The weather forecast body in Australia also has a responsibility since it is mandated with the task of researching, analysing, and predicting weather conditions for the safety of people. The weather forecast department ought to have carried out its researches and analysis of weather to warn people of the impeding danger of the gust. According to ‘The Sydney Morning Herald’ (March 29, 2013, p.2), the moment the department recorded the speed of the wind to be between 82Km/hr and 100km/hr, it should have sent alarm messages to citizens through the media and other communication avenues. Considering the Victorian OHS Act of 2004, it is very possible that the ongoing investigations by WorkSafe Victoria will lead to prosecution of some individuals and some organisations. According to the Victorian OHS Act of 2004, Worksafe should always provide a clear advice and direction that can be accessed by all people. WorkSafe should also ensure compliance with OHS Act and its regulations. The current investigations by Worksafe Victorian will be useful in investigating about the collapse of the Swanston St. Wall because the OHS Act of 2004 makes specific the way all duties that are imposed by certain regulations should be done. This will assist WorkSafe implementation since the officers in charge of the investigations will have guidelines to follow in their pursuit of the Swanston St. Wall case. For example, they will follow the guidelines to evaluate who failed to play his or her rightful roles before the collapse of the wall. ‘The Age’ (May 1, 2013, p.2) reveals that it will therefore be possible for officers to pinpoint the actual points on which negligence happened with the procedural method of implementing and carrying out certain duties. For example, the hounding of the advert isement board on the wall was supposed to have followed a certain procedure before being cleared. ‘The Age’ (April 8, 2013, p.10) also sheds light that negligence would not have taken roots and that the wall would not have collapsed if the contractors who erected the board on the wall followed the due process. Consequently, no deaths would have been witnessed. A step-by-step evaluation of the process will indicate whether certain persons overstepped their mandate and/or whether others neglected the due process. Adams (2004, p.376) asserts that the OHS Act of 2004 requires certain activities to be licensed. Such activities include construction of buildings, walls and other structures. The owner company-Pty Ltd will therefore be required to produce the necessary documentation for the erection of the wall. ‘The Age’ (April 8, 2013, p.10) confirms that companies will be required to produce the necessary documentation to show that the engineers who erected the w all were qualified and that they were licensed. Mylett and Stubbs (2006, p.7) assert that the OHS Act of 2004 also requires proper documentation to be done. The proprietor of the wall will therefore be required by law to produce all the necessary documentation to show that the law, rules, and regulations were followed during the construction of the wall. ‘The Age’ (May 1, 2013, p.2) revealed how the Act requires the company to notify the necessary authorities on some of the occurrences. For example, Pty Ltd should have reported that the wall had grown weary and weak due to its age. The company engineers should also have been suspicious of what would have happened in case of a gust. This would especially be circumvented to investigate whether the engineers authorised the hounding of the wall that had protruded above the wall height by almost a whole metre. It is therefore possible that the OHS Act will enable the WorkSafe investigations to prosecute individuals and organ isations for negligence of duties and responsibilities. According to ‘The Age’ (May 24, 2013, p.15), the organisation and the regulation authorities from various departments that should ensure safety of people are also likely to be prosecuted using such laws. This move is likely to bear fruits during the investigations. Some of the lessons learned from this tragic accidents are that it is important to follow due diligence when dealing with any construction process. The tragedy also teaches people that it is also necessary for the state to always be equipped for disaster response. According to ‘The Sydney Morning Herald’ (March 29, 2013, p.2), if Victoria was well equipped to respond fast to the tragedy, she would have been able to save her life. However, in the tragedy, security officers and investigative bodies arrived at the scene long after the tragedy had happened. The tragedy also teaches people that it is important to take precaution. ‘The Ageâ €™ (May 11, 2013, p.4) reveals that Groco Pty Ltd should have taken precautions besides reporting about the disaster. The company should have erected warning signs so that pedestrians who walked just next to the wall would take precaution. This would have prevented the deaths of the three people. The company should also have sought the company of a qualified engineer or contractor for the erection of the advertisement board. ‘The Age’ (March 30, 2013, p.5) confirms that there is evidence to show that the advertisement board was not done in accordance with rules and regulations. There was negligence or ignorance on the side of the contractor or engineers who carried out the duties. Accidents like these are not very common in Australia. In fact, according to ‘The Age’ (May 24, 2013, p.15), the government has taken stern procedures to be followed when constructing walls, buildings and other structures to avoid such accidents. However, it seems that there w as clear negligence on the part of the owner and contractors. This negligence is what resulted in the rare deaths of people from collapsed walls or buildings. It is therefore important to reinforce the rules and Acts that govern the construction of structures. For example, the WorkSafe rules should be reinforced and implemented. Mylett and Stubbs (2006, p.7) assert that every other contractor and proprietor should ensure that he or she abides by the Occupational Health and Safety Acts. This will ensure that any uncalled-for accidents are minimised. Conclusion In my opinion, I believe that the OHS regulations should not to be altered in a bid to ensure prevention of accidents that result from collapsed buildings and walls. Adams (2004, p.376) argues that the OHS Act of 2004 is clear, precise, and professional. If walls are well-implemented, there will be few or no accidents resulting from collapsed buildings and walls. However, there is the need to alter the mode of reinforcing the r ules and regulations that guide professional engineering practices and work practices. ‘The Age’ (May 11, 2013, p.4) has put it clear that it is on the implementation and reinforcement of the professional engineering procedures that negligence or corruption comes in. Reinforcement of these procedures should be carried out to ensure that due diligence is followed whenever any construction work is carried out. ‘The Sydney Morning Herald’ (March 30, 2013, p. 3) asserts that the regulating authorities should also be vigilant in ensuring that all the necessary inspection procedures are undertaken before licensing. This will prevent any unplanned accidents. References Adams, K 2004, ‘Not Quite a Brave New World: Victoria’s Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004’, Deakin Law Review, vol. 10 no. 2, pp.376-392. Mylett, T Stubbs, J 2006, ‘Awareness of OHS Rights and Responsibilities: An Evaluation of a Trade Union Training Campaign’ , Employment Relations Record, vol. 6 no. 1, pp.1-21. ‘The Age’ 2013, Alarm bells sounded over rickety freeway noise walls, 11 May, p. 4. ‘The Age’ 2013, Freak winds may have led to fatal brick wall collapse, 23 May, p.3. ‘The Age’ 2013, Owners could be charged over wall fall as Grocon under fire, 30 March, p. 5. ‘The Age’ 2013, Service for wall victims, 14 May, p.10. ‘The Age’ 2013, The wall†¦ and why it came down, 3 April, p.1. ‘The Age’ 2013, Two killed in city wall collapse, 29 March, p.1. ‘The Age’ 2013, Wall charges mooted, 14 May, p.15. ‘The Age’ 2013, Wall death grief counselling for students, 5 April, p. 6. ‘The Age’ 2013, Workers in safety rally at CUB wall site, 1 May, p. 2. ‘The Sydney Morning Herald’ 2013, Frantic fight to dig out victims of fatal wall collapse in Melbourne, 29 March, p.2. ‘The Sydney Morning Herald’ 2013, H undreds farewell victims of tragic wall collapse, 12 April, p.11. ‘The Sydney Morning Herald’ 2013, Parents mourn ‘kind-hearted’ siblings killed in wall collapse, 1 April, p.6. ‘The Sydney Morning Herald’ 2013, Site under scrutiny as siblings hit by wall identified, 30 March, p. 3. This report on The Swanston St. Wall Collapse was written and submitted by user The Watchers to help you with your own studies. You are free to use it for research and reference purposes in order to write your own paper; however, you must cite it accordingly. You can donate your paper here.

Discourse Analysis is generally an umbrella term for the many traditions by which discourse may be analysed. The WritePass Journal

Discourse Analysis is generally an umbrella term for the many traditions by which discourse may be analysed. Introduction Discourse Analysis is generally an umbrella term for the many traditions by which discourse may be analysed. IntroductionBibliography:Related Introduction It is difficult to specify   discourse analysis as a method in the traditional sense, instead discourse analysis is often described as a methodology or as a theoretical perspective rather than a method (Phillips and Hardy 2002:3), a methodology that according to Billig (1985) falls into the postmodern tradition. Discourse analysis has the capability to transcend academic and disciplinary borders as well as methodological traditions through the examination of rhetoric (Billig, 1996) and conversation analysis. (Silverman, 1997) A huge amount of debate surrounds the question to how discourse analysis should be defined as it varies according to the different analytical interests, schools of thought and the understandings of ‘’discourse’’ found both within and across disciplines. (Paltridge, 2006) According to Johnstone (2002) discourse analysis reaffirms a relativist ontology, where the epistemological foundations are socially constructed, hence discourse analysts   regard reality as socially constructed rather than as objective, where the structure of discourse analysis is rooted in language and discourse (Burr, 1995). According to Foucault (1972:36) discourse simply refers to a ‘’set of statements or practices that systematically constructs the object of which it speaks.’’ This is further asserted when examining the debate within discourse analysis that reality is dependent upon context and not an independent ‘truth’. (Fairclough, 1995)   Wetherall et al (2001) goes one step further with this explanation by proclaiming that language is a precondition on which thought can be developed and the framework that language provides enables us to bring objects into existence, this is further exerted by Parker (1993) where language and disc ourse are described as preformative by nature, they construct reality and not just represent it. This stance is best understood when examining the work of Willig (2001), according to her the world is seen as a ‘’negotiable and shifting place which cannot be understood except through language’’ (p.103). Discourse analysis differs to positivism as it does not try to   uncover the ‘true nature’ of actions but rather to understand the processes that led to the point where objects are ‘talked into being’ (Willig, 2001) Morgan (2010) emphasises that discourse analysis is a philosophy, ‘’a way of being’’ (p.1), rather than just a methodology, its strength lies in being able to situate itself along the diverse spectrum of epistemological positions, be it realist or relativist.   A number of different traditions exist within discourse analysis, the way the researcher situates themselves within this tradition varies according to their own epistemological positioning and to what research questions are asked and what they are meant to examine. In the literature conducted traditions of discourse analysis include: conversation analysis, discursive psychology, critical discourse analysis and Foucauldian research. (Morgan, 2010 and Wetherell et al, 2001) The strength of discourse analysis lies in its ability to take into account the role of historical and socio-political aspects of the research produced (Hepburn, 1999). According to Parker (1993) discourse analysis   gives particular consideration to the ways in which language norms are able to ‘’encourage authors to describe research in neat, objective, detached and sterile fashion, ignoring inevitably messy or subjective aspects’’ (p.284); regarding this point Willig argues that ‘’since language is constructive and functional, no one reading can be said to be ‘right’ or ‘valid’’(2001:103). Furthermore the argument evolves that research which involves human participants can have moral implications, since the researcher gains the upper-hand in imposing their values upon the study. (Morgan, 2010) Raskin (2001) criticises discourse analysis for encouraging an anarchical relativism, this is underlined by Dixon et al. (2000) arguing that if no interpretation can be viewed as valid or right then discourse analysis especially within texts and language becomes no more than an academic exercise, however others   argue that researchers are still able to find discourses that are viewed as ‘better’ than others even if none of them can be more ‘real’ than the other. (Harper, 2004) Another interesting critic to discourse analysis is its assumption that the world can be changed if we write about it in a different manner, such an assumption leads discourse analysis to reject an existence of a world without language (Willig, 2001), according to Wetherell et al. (2001) this relativist position makes a discourse analysis study difficult to maintain. This has led to a problem which analyst have coined as the ‘So what?’ factor (Allen et al., 2001), which refers to the constraint of using discourse analysis framework for practical purposes such as policy making (Morga n, 2010). Nevertheless, Parker (1999) offers a solution to the problem of discourse analysis’s relativism. He argues that even though symptoms are seen as real, the problem of relativism only arises when labels that posses an epistemological position, obtain an ontological status which then can be used to justify an unjust status-quo.   So deriving from this argument it is clear that one of the strengths of discourse analysis as a social constructivist methodology lies in its ability to include socio-political and moral factors into a given research agenda. (Parker, 1999) Discourse analysis is criticised by Berman et al. (1993) for its ‘’ difficulty of getting to grips with it due to the lack of prescription regarding how it should be done’’ (p. 162), however according to others an awareness should be present in using discourse analysis as just another research tool for fear that ‘’it has the potential to be used as a value-free technology’’ (ibid.) As a result, discourse analysis risks loosing its critical and political position by becoming one of the numerous scientific research tools (Bucholtz, 2001). Willig (2001) suggests that to prevent this happening to discourse analysis, researchers are encouraged to take a more critical stance in their analysis of the study to ensure that the assumptions put forward are transparent; therefore the argument unfolds itself that an advantage of discourse analysis methodology lies within its awareness that social context and the role played by the researcher w ill undoubtedly effect the outcome of the study. (Parker, 1999) However, using discourse analysis to explain social change can become problematic if the researcher adopts some form of manipulation (Willig, 2001). To clarify, an expert or policy maker would use their position in the field to implement discourses that would shape people’s lives is principally challenging as this can be viewed as another form of oppression, however according to Rose (1989) this problem can be side stepped if discourse analysis is viewed as a tool to be used collectively rather than for the purposes of manipulation, be it social or political. Another common critique of discourse analysis is found with the researchers’ strategic/political choice on which texts to analyse, it is argued that they already have some form of underlying   assumption that encourage a set of interpretations of that text (Cheek, 2000), if we continue along this line of critique it is possible for discourse analysts to provide different ambiguous interpretations and falling into the trap of creating a whole new ideology (Fairclough, 1999). Since discourse analysis challenges dominant ideologies , presenting only one form of interpretation may lead to the formation of a ‘new’ ideology. Even with such criticisms, discourse analysis provides scrupulous and regular ways of combating social problems and preparing solutions for political change (Mather, 2000). Discourse analysis is also viewed positively as it highlights the voice given to respondents, thus giving equal status to both researchers and the respondents (i.e. those being studied) (Burr, 2003), this results in the research being viewed as a dialogue rather than the researcher commanding a superior influence upon the object in question. Sherrard (1991) disagrees with this analysis as she explains that the researcher often fails to position their role in the research process especially when interacting with the interviewees, insisting that ‘’discourse analysts typically fail to examine explicitly their role in the production of the discourse they are analysing’’ (p. 181). Discourse analysis has also been criticised by Abrams et al (1990) when considering its political dimensions, they assert that there is a hidden postulation that researchers within the discourse analysis field are the most qualified amongst researchers in examining, identifying and helping disempowered social groups, therefore risking their accounts as becoming the subjective ‘truth’ (Burr, 2003). Thus some argue that the relationship between the researcher and participant is falsely ‘democratized’ when judging reflexivity, since in the end it’s the analysts interpretation and writing up of the research which will be viewed as carrying more weight. Burr (1995) highlights another important criticism to discourse analysis in the way in which ‘’ the identification of discourses has a tendency to become little more than the labelling of everyday common-sense categories’’ (p.174) As a result from this viewpoint discourse analysts are often blamed for reproducing the same structures which they are trying to challenge in the first place when identifying a discourse (Burr, 1995, p.182). A number of other critics, assert that discourse analysis over accentuates the analysis of texts and disregards other forms of discourse that are visible other ways than words, according to Willig (2001) this becomes problematic as discourse analysis fails to provide a framework on how to analyse ‘’ private manifestations of discourse such as thought and self-awareness’’ (p. 101), meaning that discourse analysts give more validity to the role of language and texts than to subjectivity or mental state. Once we are able to comprehend the strengths and weaknesses of discourse analysis and how discourses work, it becomes impossible not to be aware of them or ignore their importance as they are present in all facets of human life –political, social, economic, cultural-. Even though there are a number of limitations to as what discourse analysis is able to offer, it is hard to argue that discourse remains a crucial element of power relations and that discourse analysis is a very useful ‘tool’ for reflective analysis, by its nature of providing a deep analysis of the current discourses present in our lives. The main strength found for discourse analysis is its usage as it can be used for teaching, researching and learning the contexts in which we live, it gives us the platform to be able to look at the things that are familiar in our world and to ask those questions that will enable a critical understanding of such a context; it helps us build upon our ability for ref lexivity, as well as collective efforts with others in the participation for progressive change. Bibliography: Abrams, D. Hogg, M. A.(1990). ‘The Context of Discourse: Lets Not Throw Out the Baby with the Bathwater.’Philosophical Psychology3 (2 3):219 – 225. Allen, D., and Hardin, P. K. (2001). ‘Discourse analysis and the epidemiology of meaning.’ Nursing Philosophy, 2:163–176 Billig, M. (1985) ‘Prejudice, categorization and particularization: from a perceptual to a rhetorical approach, European Journal of Social Psychology, 15, pp.79-103. Billig, M. (1996)   Arguing and Thinking, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Bucholtz, M. (2001) ‘Reflexivity and Critique in Discourse Analysis’, Critique of Anthropology 21(1): 157–75. Burman, E. and Parker, I. (eds) (1993) Discourse Analytic Research: Repertoires and Readings of Texts in Action. London: Routledge Burr, V. (1995) An Introduction to Social Constructionism, London: Routledge Burr, V. (2003) Social Constructivism, London: Routledge. Cheek, J. (2000a). Postmodern and poststructural approaches to nursing research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Dixon, J.A., and Durrheim, K. (2000). Displacing place identity: A discursive approach to locating self and other. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 27-44. Fairclough, N. (1995) Critical Discourse Analysis, London: Longman Fairclough, N. (1999) ‘Linguistic and intertextual analysis within discourse analysis’, in: A. Jaworski N. Coupland (Eds) The discourse reader. (London, Routledge), 183-211. Foucault, M. (1972) The archaeology of knowledge. London, Tavistock. Harper, D. (2004). ‘’Delusions and discourse: moving beyond the constraints of the modernist paradigm’’. Philosophy, Psychiatry Psychology, 11(1), 55–64. Johnstone, B.(2002) Discourse Analysis. Blackwell Publishers Mather, R. (2000) The foundations of Critical Psychology. History of Human Sciences. Vol. 13, (2), pp. 85-100 Morgan, A. (2010). ‘Discourse Analysis: An Overview for the Neophyte Researcher.’Journal of Health and Social Care Improvement   5:1-7 Paltridge, B. (2006) Discourse Analysis. London: Continuum Parker, I. (1999) Introduction: Varieties of Discourse and Analysis’,   In I. Parker and Bolton Discourse Network, Critical Textwork: An Introduction to Varieties of Discourse and Analysis, pp. 1-12, Buckingham: Open University Press. Parker, I., Burman, E. (1993) Against discursive imperialism, empiricism, and constructionism: Thirty-two problems with discourse analysis in Burman, E., Parker, I., (Eds), Discourse analytic research: Repertoires and readings of texts in action, pp.155-290, London: Routledge. Phillips, N. and Hardy, C. (2002) Discourse Analysis: Investigating Processes of Social Construction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Raskin, J. D. (2001) ‘’On relativism in constructivist psychology’’, Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 14, 285-313. Rose, N. (1989) Individualising psychology, in: J. Shotter K. Gergen (eds.), Texts of identity (London: Sage) pp. 119-132. Silverman, D. (1997)   (Ed), Qualitative Research: Theory, method and practices, London: Sage Wetherell, M., Taylor, S., Yates, S. (2001) Discourse theory and practice: A reader, London; Sage. Willig, C. (2001). Quality in qualitative research. In C. Willig (2001). Introducing qualitative research in psychology: Adventures in theory and method. Buckingham: Open University Press

Explain why,and how,an English-based Creole is being promoted in any Essay

Explain why,and how,an English-based Creole is being promoted in any one country - Essay Example Consequently, an individual’s language also undergoes the interactions with other languages existing in his surroundings and such interactions between the languages result into the structuring of a new form of language, called Pidgin that the individuals of different languages can use at their own conveniences. Such Amenities and conveniences that a Pidgin provides its speakers evolves from the amalgamation of the convenient forms and contents of both of the languages (Kachru & Nelson, 2006). Indeed a Pidgin exists to serve a particular set of purposes such as economic, political, social, religious, etc. When along the passage of social transformation a Pidgin or a set of varied Pidgins is widely used by the people of a country, a Creole happens to exist in the form of a stable language with particular grammatical rules and norms. So it is difficult to distinct the separate existence of a Creole along the Pidgin-Creole continuum (Bickerton, 1975). This paper aims to substantia te the development of a Creole in a country, particularly in Jamaica. Various linguists have defined Creole in different ways. The commonalities of these is that all of them consider a Creole as a stable language with a set of grammatical norms and rules that evolve from its prior form, Pidgin, whereas the later serves as a lingua franca used by several linguistic communities for a particular purpose. Pidgin and Creole are often described as â€Å"trade language† and â€Å"contact language† and necessarily a Creole originates from a Pidgin. As Foy (2007) says in this regard, A Creole language is usually described as the descendant of a pidgin language and created when a pidgin language acquires native speakers and develops into a mother tongue, hence the popular assertion that a Creole language is any language with a pidgin in its ancestry (p. 9). An overall analysis of the development of a Pidgin and therefore, a Creole in any region is bound to reveal